HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1141 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Romit Seth, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Rakesh Chandra Tewari, Advocate, who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, is taken on record. 2. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, which is taken on record. 3. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 0108 of 2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) B.N.S, registered at Police Station Jankipuram, District Lucknow. By means of a supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that Sections 351(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 612(a) B.N.S have been added against the applicant during investigation. 4. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 28.05.2025 against four persons, including the applicant, his father, mother and brother, stating that the father of the applicant-co-accused Ram Naraian Trivedi was an old acquaintance of the informant's husband Sudhir Kumar Mishra. On the allurement of all the accused persons, the informant made heavy investment for establishing a petrol pump business in partnership with co-accused Sunaina, mother of the applicant. Regarding this, an agreement was executed and the applicant had Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Romit Seth Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ashish .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Home) Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) witnessed execution of the agreement. The F.I.R alleges that the informant had invested Rs. 54 Lakhs exceeding her share in the partnership but inspite of several demands, no account was rendered to her. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in another case has been disclosed in para 50 of the affidavit. 6. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the anticipatory bail application and he has submitted that the investigation of the matter is still going on. 7. The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application and he has submitted that the applicant is involved with the co-accused persons, who are his family members in duping the complainant of a heavy amount of money. 8. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R alleges investment made by the complainant in a partnership business and non rendering account by the partner- co-accused Sunaina; the applicant was merely a witness to the execution of the commercial agreement, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Ashish before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court: (i). that the applicant shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, NABAIL No. 1141 of 2025 2 threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. September 4, 2025 Preeti. NABAIL No. 1141 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench